a folio from the berlin state library – additional remarks

R O C Z N I K O R I E N T A L I S T Y C Z N Y, T. LXVIII, Z. 2, 2015, (s. 9–23)

KIRILL ALEKSEEV, ANNA TURANSKAYA

A Folio from the Berlin State Library – Additional Remarks on the History of the Mongolian Kanjur

Abstract

The article presents a description and textological analysis of a single manuscript folio of the Mongolian Kanjur preserved in the Berlin State Library. The folio is written in gold on a black and blue background and reveals a striking similarity to the Golden Kanjur in the library of the Academy of Social Sciences of Inner Mongolia and the “golden” Kanjur fragments kept in manuscript collections around the world. It contains a fragment of the Mongolian translation of the Bhadrakalpika-sūtra that differs from the subsequent copies of the Ligdan’s Kanjur.

Keywords: Mongolian Kanjur, “golden” manuscripts, Ablai-kit, the Berlin State Library

The* earliest version of the Mongolian Kanjur that has survived to the present day is the manuscript edition produced in the years 1628–1629 under Ligdan Khan of Chakhar (r. 1604–634). According to the Mongolian historiographical tradition the final product of this work was a special 113-volume manuscript written in gold on a black and blue background. Subsequently it was named the “Altan” or “Golden” Kanjur.1 Twenty volumes, including fragments, of the Kanjur written in gold are currently preserved in the library of the Academy of Social Sciences of Inner Mongolia in the city of Huhhot (AK). For the purposes of this article only some of the characteristics of this voluminous manuscript are to be mentioned here. It is a luxurious pothi format manuscript (sized 72 x 24.9 cm, 57.5 x 15.5 cm) written in gold on black and blue paper. The first folios of the volumes

* The authors acknowledge St. Petersburg State University for a research grant 2.38.311.2014.1 Čoyiǰ i 1987: 148; Čoyiǰ i 1999: 114.

KIRILL ALEKSEEV, ANNA TURANSKAYA10

are decorated with illustrations of Buddhist deities accompanied by captions and praying formulas. On the middle axis of each folio (excluding the first folios of the volumes) two double circles are drawn symbolizing the holes for the cords that used to bind some Indian palm-leaf manuscripts. On the bulk of the folios hundreds in the pagination are indicated by small crosses: so, for example, the number on page 346 will be written as “+++ döčin ǰirγuγan”. Although twenty extant volumes of the manuscript demonstrate a variety of hands, all of them can be defined as one ductus (handwriting style)2 characteristic of the late 16th – early 17th centuries.3 The text reveals some elements of the pre-classical orthography. The history, the colophon, the contents and the physical features of the manuscript kept in Huhhot give us clear indication, if not quite confirmation, that it is the Golden Kanjur of Ligdan Khan written in 1629.4

A number of odd folios and fragments written in gold on a black and blue background can be found in Russian and European manuscript collections such as the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts in St. Petersburg, the Herzog August Bibliothek in Wolfenbüttel, the library of the University of Kassel, the Francke Foundations in Halle, the Linköping City Library, and perhaps in the collections of the British Library and in Glasgow.5 Most probably, the folios were brought to Russia and Europe in the 18th century from the half-ruined monastery Ablai-kit. It was built on the River Irtysh by the Khoshut Ablai-tayiǰi in the mid-1650s, and consecrated by the Oirat Zaya Paṇḍita (1599–1662) in 1657. The monastery was abandoned after Ablai’s defeat in 1671.6

Folios’ sizes, design and handwriting style imply that they were pulled out of one and the same exemplar of the Mongolian Kanjur. Although these folios are smaller in size,7 in terms of codicology, paleography and orthography they reveal a striking similarity with AK. This similarity allows to suggest that most likely there were two copies of the Golden Kanjur (or one complete copy and a fragment) written at the same time, as parts of one and the same “project”.8 The question of how these folios (or the whole Kanjur set) found their way to Ablai-kit remains to be answered.

During the 17th – early 18th centuries Ligdan’s edition was repeatedly copied and circulated among the Mongols, which is attested by a number of manuscript fragments preserved until now as well as by some Mongolian sources. For example, the 18th century Mongolian biography of Neyiči-toyin (1557–1653) narrates that Neyiči-toyin had had plenty of ink and paper brought from Mukden, that he assembled many scribes and

2 The ductus is a particular variant of the writing system used by different hands. For the definition and description of the Mongolian ductuses see Kara 2005: 104–121.

3 It is interesting to note that quite a similar handwriting style can be seen in the pseudo-Mongolian “letter” of Altan Khan to the Chinese court (1580). About this manuscript scroll see Kara 2005: 111; Pozdneev 1895.

4 For more details see Alekseev, Turanskaya 2013. 5 On these manuscript fragments see: Alekseev, Turanskaya, Yampol’skaya 2014; Alekseev, Turanskaya,

Yampol’skaya 2015; Heissig 1979, 1998; Knüppel 2014.6 The recent article by A. Zorin shows that the possible source of these folios could also be two other Jungar

monasteries located in the Irtysh basin. Zorin 2015.7 The average size of the odd “golden” folios is 64 x 23 cm, the frame 51 x 14 cm.8 For details see Alekseev, Turanskaya, Yampol’skaya 2014: 211–214.

A FOLIO FROM THE BERLIN STATE LIBRARY – ADDITIONAL REMARKS ON THE HISTORY… 11

made them copy the 108 parts of the Kanjur which he then distributed amongst all the converted nobility.9 At the moment the following so-called “black” (written with black ink on plain paper) Kanjurs are identified as copies of the Ligdan Khan’s edition: the complete 113-volume collection kept in the St. Petersburg State University Library (PK),10 109 volumes of the Kanjur kept in the Institute for Mongolian, Buddhist and Tibetan Studies of the Siberian Branch of the RAS (UUK),11 a collection compiled from several manuscript copies in the library of the Academy of Social Sciences of Inner Mongolia (HHK1),12 the bulk of the 70-volume collection kept in the National Library of Mongolia in Ulan Bator as the Kanjur (UBK),13 one volume preserved in the Royal Library in Copenhagen (CK),14 and fragments of two Kanjur sets kept in the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts in St. Petersburg, as well as in the Francke Foundations in Halle and the Berlin State Library.15 All the “black” Kanjurs demonstrate the less archaic handwriting styles than AK and the odd “golden” folios.

Though the structure and the content of the volumes in AK and the consequent “black” Kanjurs are the same, they are not entirely identical. The major divergence between AK and the other manuscript collections is represented by the five works of the Pañcarakṣ ā16 text located in the vol. ra of the Dandira (i.e. Tantra) section.17 While AK contains Pañcarakṣ ā translated by the eminent 14th century scholar Shes-rab Seng-ge, in the “black” Kanjurs it is in Ayusi Güsi’s (late 16th – early 17th cent.) translation, implemented in 1598.18 This and a number of smaller textual differences19 show that AK in a way stands apart from the “black” Kanjurs. It is possible to suggest that the latter ascend not directly to AK, but to its later copy, in which the old translation of the Pañcarakṣ ā was replaced with a newer one and a number of textual changes were made. There is a chance that the missing volumes of AK also differed considerably from the later copies.

9 The source does not specify in what language (Tibetan or Mongolian) the Kanjur was written. Nevertheless, W. Heissig assumes that as Neyiči-toyin had asked his followers “to read it repeatedly, and the Tibetan language was not very widely known among the Eastern Mongols”, he had copied the Ligdan’s manuscript edition. See Heissig 1953: 24.

10 See the catalogue of PK in Kas’yanenko 1993a.11 The online catalogue of the collection was prepared by Zh. Badagarov and N. Tsyrempilov within the framework of

the Ganjur Colophons in Comparative Analysis project. See <http://www.mongolganjur.com/> (last visited 25.03.2015).12 The description of the collection see in Alekseev 2015: 205–206.13 This collection was also compiled from several manuscript Kanjurs. See the description of some volumes

in Heissig 1973; Kas’yanenko 1993b. A review of the collection is given in Alekseev 2015: 206–207.14 Heissig 1957: 71–87; Heissig, Bawden 1971: 199–204; Kollmar–Paulenz 2002: 162–165.15 For details see Knüppel 2014: 23–26, 111–116; Yampol’skaya 2015.16 See the titles of the works in Kollmar–Paulenz 2002a: 177–178 note 4.17 Kas’yanenko 1993a: Nos. 506–510.18 On the peculiarities of both translations see: Sárközi 2010.19 For details see Alekseev 2015: 210–211.


Later on one of these copies became the basis for yet another edition of the Mongolian Kanjur – this time in blockprint – produced under the auspices of the Qing Emperor Kangxi (1654–1722) in 1718–1720 in Beijing (MK).20

Another folio similar to the above-mentioned “golden” folios and their fragments is preserved in the Berlin State Library under the shelf mark Ms. or. Fol. 477 (SBAK) (see Fig. 1–4). On the recto side of the folio there are two red oval stamps with the inscription “Ex Bibl. Regia Berolin.” We do not have any information on when and under what circumstances it was brought to Europe. The annotation on the SBAK folder reads: “1 Blatt aus dem mongolischen Gandschur: Eldeb sudur, Blatt 81 (Manuskript, Gold auf Schwarz)”.

The pothi format folio is cut along the margins, therefore its original size is unknown. Its actual size is 52.5 x 16.3 cm. The paper is Chinese, painted blue. The text is written using a reed pen (calamus) with golden ink inside the blackened glossy interior of a frame outlined with a double red line sized 50.9 x 14.2 cm. On the recto side of the folio on the left side of the frame there is a “rail” enclosing a marginal title denoting the section of the collection – Eldeb sudur, the number of the volume marked with a Tibetan letter – ka, and pagination in Mongolian – nayan nigen (81). The number of lines on the recto side is 25, on the verso – 26.

The text is written with a clear hand, characterized with almost the same width of vertical and horizontal lines. The initial “teeth” do not have crowns, the initial “s” and “q” are almost indistinguishable from each other (the first one has the form of a sharp wedge, the latter is more rounded). The medial “t” and “d” are sharpened and the lower element of the letter is not connected with the vertical axis. Final “a”, “e” and “n” are written in the form of a horizontal “tail” that is turned down, as well as the long hanging “tails” (in the cases when a scribe needed to fill in some excess space). The final “s” is a short horizontal “tail”. The orkicas have “snake’s tongues”. The “sticks” are almost of the same length as the “teeth” and differ from the latter only in their shape and the angle of their inclination. It is interesting to note that the handwriting style of SBAK resembles the Uyghur fragments on a dark blue background discovered in Turfan.21 The hand of SBAK is identical to the other “golden” folios and very similar to AK. Below in the Table 1 we have provided examples of the writing of the same words in AK and SBAK.

20 For the catalogue of the Kangxi edition see Ligeti 1942. See also Bischoff 1968. The whole text was published in Lokesh Chandra 1973–1979, and at present a new edition is being created in China under the direction of Prof. Altanorgil.

21 See, for example, Turfan Studies 2007: 15. See also <http://turfan.bbaw.de/dta/u/images/u3832seite1.jpg> (last visited 10.05.2015).


Table 1

AK SBAK

bara

mid

ür-e

büte

gegč

i

kem

ebes

ü


AK SBAK

eges

ig

olbu

ri

The size of the text fragment on SBAK does not provide much opportunity for the orthographic analysis. Nevertheless it is possible to indicate some elements characteristic of the pre-classical orthography such as:− full absence of diacritical marks− pre-classical use of “t” and “d” in suffixes: tegün-tür, lagsan-tur− archaic spelling of such words as bodisung, linqua− regular use of the same sign both for “č” and “ǰ” in medial position.

Judging by characteristics of SBAK it belongs to the same Kanjur set as the “golden” folios mentioned above. The only difference with SBAK is the absence of the circles which are visible on the other folios.

SBAK contains the fragment from the sixth chapter (Tib. bam po, Mong. bölög) of the Ārya-bhadrakalpika-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra (Tib. ’Phags pa bskal pa bzang po pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo, Mong. Qutuγ-tu sayin čaγ-un neretü yeke kölgen sudur). In the Peking edition of the Tibetan Kanjur this text is in the first volume (marked i) of the mDo section, with the fragment under consideration placed at 68r/6 – 69r/1.22 In AK the volumes with the Bhadrakalpika text are missing. In the “black” Kanjurs it occupies the first two volumes of the Eldeb section (ka and kha). In PK the required fragment is

22 bKa’ ’gyur pe cin par ma 2010: 68r/6 – 69r/1.

Table 1 (cont.)


located in vol. ka,23 16v/23–16v/39. In MK the Bhadrakalpika text is in the first volume of the Eldeb section (ka)24 with the fragment placed on 72v/21–73v/9.

In Table 2 the textological collation of the fragment in SBAK, PK (as one of the “black” Kanjurs) and MK is provided. For clarity of collation the texts are divided into sentences.

Table 225

SBAK, Eldeb sudur, ka PK, Eldeb, ka MK, Eldeb, ka

[81r/1] ali tere kemebesü čaγsabad-un činadu ki*****–a (=kiǰaγar-a) [2] kürügsen–ü olburi ür-e bolai:

[16v/23] … alimad tere ber: saγsabad-un baramid-un teyin büged bolbasun bolγaqui buyu:

[72v/21] … alimad tere ber: šaγšabad-un baramid-un [22] teyin büged bolbasuraγsan buyu:

qamuγ-ača ilete [3] sayin ali tere kemebesü küličenggüi-yin činadu [4] kiǰaγar-a kürügsen-ü olburi ür-e bolai:

büküi-eče sayin oγ-tu tuγuriγ [24] alimad tere ber: küličenggüyin baramid-un teyin büged bolbasun bolγaqu buyu:

büküi-eče sayin [23] oγ-tu tuγuriγ alimad tere ber: küličenggü-yin [24] baramid-un teyin büged bolbasuraγsan buyu:

sidüd [5] tögürig ali tere kemebesü: kičiyenggüi-yin činadu [6] kiǰaγar-a kürügsen-ü olburi ür-e bolai:

sidün moqolčaγ alimad tere ber: kičiyenggüyin (!) baramid-un teyin büged bolbasun bolγaqu [25] buyu:

sidün [25] moqolčaγ alimad tere ber: kičiyenggü-yin baramid-un [26] teyin büged bolbasuraγsan buyu:

ese [7] ǰöičeged (=?ǰöričeged)1) usun-u egüden ese γaruγad qataγu [8] ali tere kemebesü: diyan-u činadu kiǰaγar-a [9] kürügsen-ü olburi ür-e bolai:

ülü kelteren čülüge ese γaruγsan qataγu alimad tere ber: diyan-u baramid-un teyin büged bolbasun bolγaqu buyu:

ülü kelteren [27] čülüge ese γaruγsan qataγu alimad tere ber: [28] diyan-u baramid-un teyin büged bolbasuraγsan buyu:

23 Kas’yanenko 1993a: No. 615.24 Ligeti 1942: No. 849.25 The following symbols are used for the Galik letters (for the transcription) and editorial marks: <…> –

glosses and interpolations, *** – unclear readings, (=) and (=?) – possible readings, o’ – . Variant readings in PK and MK are marked with underlined bold italics.

1) Corresponds with ma grugs shing in the Tibetan text; both PK and MK translated this phrase as kelterkü – ‘to break, crumble’.



dorodu ber [10] degedü-lüge ǰöbken bügetele degedü ber dorodu[11]-luγ-a ǰöbken sidün tusayalduǰu (!) (=tusiyalduǰu) aγulǰaγsan üǰebesü [12] üǰesküleng-tü ali tere kemebesü: bilig-ün činadu [13] kiǰaγar-a kürügsen-ü olburi ür-e bolai:

door-a-tu ber degedü-lüge adali degedü [26] ber: door-a-tu-luγ-a ǰabsar-day-a (!) sidün čike-ber tegüsügsen üǰebesü γou-a alimad tere ber: bilig-ün baramid-un teyin büged bolbasun bolγaqu buyu:

[29] door–a–du ber degedü-lüge adali: degedü ber [30] door-a-du-luγ-a ǰabsar-tay-a sidün čike-ber [31] tegüsügsen üǰebesü γou-a alimad tere ber: [32] bilig-ün baramid-un teyin büged bolbasuraγsan buyu:

edeger [14] kemebesü sidün sačaγu bütegegči-yin ǰirγuγan [15] baramid bolai:

edeger ber [27] tegsiregsen sidün-i bütügegči ǰirγuγan baramid bolai::

[73r/1] edeger ber tegsiregsen sidün-i bütügegči ǰirγuγan [2] baramid bolai::

tegün-tür döčin sidüd bütegegči [16] ǰirγuγan baramid ali bui kemebesü: döčin sidüd [17] tegüsügsen ali tere kemebesü: öglige baramid-ün ür-e [18] bolai:

tegün-tür döčin sidün-i bütügegči ǰirγuγan baramid ali buyu kemebesü: döčin sidün büridügsen alimad [28] tere ber: öglige-yin baramid-un teyin büged bolbasun bolγaqu buyu:

tegün-dür döčin sidün-i bütügegči [3] ǰirγuaγan baramid ali buyu kemebesü: döčin sidün [4] büridügsen alimad tere ber: öglige-yin baramid-un [5] teyin büged bolbasuraγsan buyu:

sidüd niγta sayin ali tere kemebesü: čaγsabad [19] olburi ür-e bolai:

sidün-ü uγ sayin alimad tere ber: saγasabad-un teyin büged bolbasun bolγaqu buyu:

sidün–ü uγ sayin [6] alimad tere ber: šaγašabad-un teyin büged [7] bolbasuraγsan buyu:

sidüd ese irayiγsan (!) (=irǰayiγsan) ali [20] tere kemebesü: küličenggüi-yin olburi ür-e bolai:

sidün ber [29] ese irǰayiγsan alimad tere ber: küličenggüyin (!) teyin büged bolbasun bolγaqu buyu:

sidün ber ese irǰayiγsan alimad [8] tere ber: küličenggü-yin teyin büged bolbasuraγsan buyu:

[21] soyoγ–a sidün qurča ali tere kemebesü: kičiyenggüi[22]-yin olburi ür-e bolai:

sidün qurča alimad tere ber: kičiyenggüyin (!) teyin büged bolbasun bolγaqu buyu:

[9] sidün qurča alimad tere ber: kičiyenggü-yin [10] teyin büged bolbasuraγsan buyu:

Table 2 (cont.)



sidüd sayin tögürig ali [23] tere kemebesü: diyan-u olburi ür-e bolai:

sidün [30] sayitur büridügsen alimad tere ber: diyan-u teyin büged bolbasun bolγaqu buyu:

sidün sayitur [11] büridügsen alimad tere ber: diyan-u teyin büged [12] bolbasuraγsan buyu:

sidüd [24] masi čing boluγad sedkil-tür ǰokistu ali tere [25] kemebesü: bilig baramid-un olburi ür-e buyu:

sidün masi töbsireged sedkil-tür oroqu metü alimad tere ber: bilig-ün [31] baramid-un teyin büged bolbasun bolγaqu buyu:

sidün masi batu boluγad [13] sedkil-dür oroqu metü alimad tere ber: bilig-ün [14] baramid-un teyin büged bolbasuraγsan buyu:

[81v/1] edeger kemebesü döčin sidün bütegegči ǰirγuγan [2] baramid bolai::

edeger ber döčin sidün-i bütegegči ǰirγuγan baramid bolai::

edeger ber [15] döčin sidün-i bütügegči ǰirγuγan baramid bolai::

tegün-tür urtu kelen-i bütegegči [3] ǰirγuγan baramid ali bui kemebesü: čikin-ü erketen[4]-ü sübei-yi (!) aγui delgerenggüy-e bürkügsen ali tere [5] kemebesü öglige baramid-un olburi ür-e bolai:

tegün-tür urtu kelen-i bütügegči ǰirγuγan baramid [32] ali buyu kemebesü: čikin-ü nüken-tür aγui yekede bürkügsen alimad tere ber: öglige-yin teyin büged bolbasun bolγaqu buyu:

[16] tegün-dür urtu kelen-ü bütügegči ǰirγuγan [17] baramid ali buyu kemebesü: čikin-ü nüken-dür [18] aγui yekede bürkügsen alimad tere ber: öglige-yin [19] teyin büged bolbasuraγsan buyu:

[6] kelen kkir-iyer ese qučaγdaγsan (=qučiγdaγsan) ali tere kemebesü [7] čaγsabad-un olburi ür-e bolai:

kelen kkir-tür ese qaldaγsan alimad [33] tere ber: saγsabad-un teyin büged bolbasun bolγaqu buyu:

kelen kkir-tü ese [20] qaldaγsan alimad tere ber: šaγšabad-un teyin büged [21] bolbasuraγsan buyu:

kelen tanglai-tur [8] niγalduγsan ali tere kemebesü: küličenggüi-yin [9] olburi ür-e bolai:

kelen tanglai-tür naγalduγsan alimad tere ber: küličenggüyin (!) teyin büged bolbasun bolγaqu buyu:

kelen tanglai-dür naγalduγsan [22] alimad tere ber: küličenggü-yin teyin büged [23] bolbasuraγsan buyu:

kelen asuru aγui delgerenggüi [10] ali tere kemebesü: kičiyenggüi-yin olburi ür-e: [11] bolai:

kelen [34] masi aγui yeke alimad tere ber: kičiyenggüyin (!) teyin büged bolbasun bolγaqu buyu:

kelen masi aγui yeke alimad [24] tere ber: kičiyenggü-yin teyin büged bolbasuraγsan buyu:



lagsan-ur tegülder bütügsen ali tere [12] kemebesü: diyan-u olburi ür-e bolai:

belge-lüge tegüsün bütügsen alimad tere ber: diyan-u teyin büged bolbasun [35] bolγaqu buyu:

[25] belge-lüge tegüsün bütügsen alimad tere ber: [26] diyan-u teyin büged bolbasuraγsan buyu:

tere naiman [13] linqu-ayin <nabčin> öngge sayitur orosiγsan ali tere [14] kemebesü: bilig baramid-un olburi ür-e buyu:

tegün-tür naiman kiǰaγasutu badm-a linqu-a-yin öngge ber sayitur aγči alimad tere ber: bilig-ün baramid-un teyin büged bolbasun bolγaqu buyu:

tegün-dür [27] naiman kiǰaγasu-tu badm-a lingqu-a-yin öngge ber [28] sayitur aγči alimad tere ber: bilig-ün baramid-un [29] teyin büged bolbasuraγsan buyu:

[15] edeger kemebesü: urtu kelen-i bütegegči ǰirγuγan [16] baramid bolai:

[36] edeger ber urtu kelen-i bütügegči ǰirγuγan baramid bolai::

edeger ber urtu [30] kelen-i bütügegči ǰirγuγan baramid bolai::

tegün-tür bodisung-nar esru-a[17]-yin egesig-i bütegegči ǰirγuγan baramid ali bui: [18] kemebesü: niγuča öndür egesig ali tere kemebesü: [19] öglige-yin olburi ür-e bolai:

tegün-tür bodisung-nar-un esrün egesig-i bütegegči ǰirγuγan baramid ali buyu kemebesü: egesig-i [37] niγuča üǰegči (=? öčigči) alimad tere ber: öglige-yin teyin büged bolbasun bolγaqu buyu:

tegün-dür [31] bo’dhi satuva-nar-un esrün egesig-i bütügegči [32] ǰirγuγan baramid ali buyu kemebesü: egesig [73v/1] čülderkei öndür alimad tere ber: öglige-yin [2] teyin büged bolbasuraγsan buyu:

bayasqaγuluγči [20] egesig ali tere kemebesü: čaγsabad-un olburi [21] ür–e bolai:

bayasqaqui boluγsan egesig alimad tere ber: saγsabad-un teyin büged [38] bolbasun bolγaqu buyu:

bayasqaqui boluγsan [3] egesig alimad tere ber: šaγšabad-un teyin büged [4] bolbasuraγsan buyu:

eldeb egesig-tü ali tere [22] kemebesü: küličenggüi-yin olburi ür-e bolai:

eldeb ǰüil-tü egesig alimad tere ber: küličenggüyin (!) teyin bolbasun bolγaqu buyu:

eldeb ǰüil-tü egesig alimad [5] tere ber: küličenggü-yin teyin büged bolbasuraγsan buyu:

čoγ[23]-tur ülü daruγdaqu egesig ali tere kemebesü: [24] kičiyenggüi-yin olburi ür-e bolai:

čoγ-a ülü daruγdaqui alimad tere ber: kičiyenggüyin (!) [39] teyin büged bolbasun bolγaqu buyu:

[6] egesig čoγ-a ülü daruγdaqui alimad tere ber: [7] kičiyenggü-yin teyin büged bolbasuraγsan buyu:

Table 2 (cont.)



nasu tasurasi [25] ügei daγun egesig ali tere kemebesü: diyan-u [26] olburi ür-e bolai:

egesig tasurasi ügei alimad tere ber: diyan-u teyin büged bolbasun bolγaqu buyu:

egesig [8] tasurasi ügei alimad tere ber: diyan-u teyin büged [9] bolbasuraγsan buyu:

kelen dokiyan bügüde-tür daγun kiged dokiyan büküi-tür …

daγun kiged dokiyan büküi-dür …

As it follows from the table, PK and MK contain the same translation of the sūtra26 and the text in MK is the edited version of the one in PK. The fragment in SBAK is different from both PK and MK and seems to represent the other translation of the Bhadrakalpika. Thus, we can assume, that the Kanjur set, from which the “golden” folios (including SBAK) were extracted, contained the other translation of the Bhadrakalpika-sūtra or at least a version of the text that was later substantially revised. Considering the above-mentioned similarity between the “golden” folios and AK it is possible to suggest, that AK could also include this version of the sūtra and have even more divergences from the subsequent “black” Kanjurs, than we are now aware of. This once again indicates that the idea of a uniform “redaction” of the Ligdan Khan’s Kanjur is at variance with the facts. It appears to be a continuous process in which the creation of new copies was sufficient grounds for further editing.

Bibliography

Alekseev, Kirill. 2015. “Mongol’skiy Gandzhur: genesis i struktura”. In: Strany i narody Vostoka, Vyp. XXXVI, pp. 190–228.

Alekseev, Kirill, Turanskaya, Anna. 2013. “An overview of the Altan Kanjur kept at the Library of the Academy of Social Sciences of Inner Mongolia”, Asiatische Studien / Études Asiatiques LXVII (3), pp. 755–782.

Alekseev, Kirill, Turanskaya, Anna, Yampol’skaya, Nataliya. 2014. “Fragmenty mongol’skogo rukopisnogo Gandzhura v sobranii IVR RAN”, Pis’mennye pamyatniki Vostoka 1 (20), pp. 206–224.

Alekseev, Kirill, Turanskaya, Anna, Yampol’skaya, Nataliya. 2015. “The First Mongolian Manuscript in Germany Reconsidered”. In: Written Monuments of the Orient 1, pp. 67–77.

Bischoff, Frederick Alexander. 1968. Der Kanjur und seine Kolophone. Bd. I (Vol. 1–25: Tantra), Bd. II (Vol. 26–47: Prajñāparamitā), Vol. 48–53: Ratnakūṭa, Vol. 54–59: Avataṃsaka, Vol. 60–92: Sūtra. Vol. 93–108: Vinaya). Bloomington: The Selbstverlag Press.

Čoyiǰ i (ed.). 1987. Altan kürdün mingγan kegesütü. Kökeqota: Öbör mongγol-un arad-un keblel-ün qoriy-a.Čoyiǰ i (ed.). Altan erike. 1999. Kökeqota: Öbör mongγol-un arad-un keblel-ün qoriy-a.

26 According to the colophons of both PK and MK the text was translated by Dayičing-tayiǰi. See Kas’yanenko 1993: 198; Ligeti 1942: 215. In UBK volumes ka and kha of the Eldeb section are missing. HHK1 and UBK contain the same translation of the Bhadrakalpika as PK. A two-volume blockprint edition of the same translation was published in Beijing in 1666. See Heissig 1954: 10, No. 5.


Heissig, Walther. 1953. “A Mongolian Source to the Lamaist Suppression of Shamanism in the 17th Century”, Anthropos 48, pp. 1–29.

Heissig, Walther. 1954. Die Pekinger lamaistischen Blockdrucke in mongolischer Sprache: Materialien zur mongolischen Literaturgeschichte. Wiesbaden, Otto Harrassowitz.

Heissig, Walther. 1957. “Zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Mongolischen Kandjur-Redaktion der Ligdan Khan-Zeit (1628–1629)”. In: Studia Altaica. Festschrift für Nikolaus Poppe zum 60. Geburtstag am 8. August 1957. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, pp. 71–87.

Heissig, Walther. 1973. “Zur Organisation der Kandjur-Übersetzung unter Ligdan-Khan (1628–1629)”, Zentralasiatische Studien 7, pp. 477–501.

Heissig, Walther. 1979. “Die erste mongolische Handschrift in Deutschland”, Zentralasiatische Studien 13, pp. 191–214.

Heissig, Walther. 1998. “Some Remarks on the Question of the First Translation of the Mongolian Kandjur”. In: Essays on Mongol Studies. Commemorative Volume to the 70 Year Birthday of Academician Sh. Bira. Ulaanbaatar: Olon ulsyn mongol sudlalyn holboo, pp. 155–160.

Heissig, Walther, Bawden, Charles. 1971. Catalogue of Mongol Books, Manuscripts, Xylographs etc. in Danish Collections. Copenhagen: The Royal Library.

bKa’ ’gyur pe cin par ma. 2010. Woodblock print preserved at the National Library of Mongolia, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. Digitally published and distributed by Digital Preservation Society, Tokyo.

Kara, György. 2005. Books of the Mongolian Nomads. More than Eight Centuries of Writing Mongolian. First English Edition Translated from the Russian by John R. Krueger. Bloomington: Indiana University.

Kas’yanenko, Zoya Kononovna. 1993a. Katalog peterburgskogo rukopisnogo “Gandzhura”. Sostavlenie, vvedenie, transliteratsiya i ukazateli Z.K. Kas’yanenko. Pamyatniki pis’mennosti Vostoka CII, Bibliotheka Buddhica XXXIX. Moskva: Nauka.

Kas’yanenko, Zoya Kononovna. 1993b. “Novye dannye o pervoi redaktsii buddiyskogo kanona na mongol’skom yazyke”. In: Mongolica. K 750-letiyu “Sokrovennogo skazaniya”. Moskva: Nauka, 1993, pp. 201–219.

Knüppel, Michael. 2014. Vom Irtysch nach Kassel. Zum Problem der ersten mongolischen und tibetischen Handschriften in Deutschland. Kassel: Kassel University Press.

Kollmar-Paulenz, Karenina. 2002a. “A Note on the Mongolian Translator Ayusi güsi”. In: K. Kollmar-Paulenz and Ch. Peter (eds.) Tractata Tibetica et Mongolica. Festschrift für Klaus Sagaster zu seinem 65. Geburtstag am 19. März 1998. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, pp. 177–187.

Kollmar-Paulenz, Karenina. 2002b. “The Transmission of the Mongolian Kanjur: A Preliminary Report”. In: Helmut Eimer and David Germano (eds.): The Many Canons of Tibetan Buddhism. Leiden: Brill, 2002, pp. 151–176.

Ligeti, Louis. 1942. Catalogue du Kanǰur Mongol Imprimé. Vol. I. Catalogue. Budapest: Socièté Korosi Csoma.Lokesh Chandra (ed.). 1973–1979. Mongolian Kanjur. Śata Piṭ aka Series. Vols. 1–108. New Delhi.Otte, Wolf-Dieter. 1986. Kataloge der Herzog August Bibliothek, Wollfenbüttel. Die neueren Handschriften

der Gruppe Extravagantes. Teil 1, A Extrav. – 90 Extrav. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann.Pozdneev, Aleksei Matveevich. 1895. “Novootkrytyi pamyatnik mongol’skoi pis’mennosti vremen dinastii

Min”. In: Vostochnye zametki. Sb. statei i issledovanii professorov i prepodavatelei fakul’teta vostochnykh yazykov Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Sankt-Peterburg. pp. 367–386.

Sárközi, Alice. 2010. “Mongolian Buddhist Terminology over the Ages”. In: Altaica et Tibetica: Anniversary Volume Dedicated to Stanisław Godziński on His Seventieth Birthday [Rocznik Orientalistyczny 63 (1)]. Warszawa: Dom Wydawniczy Elipsa, pp. 215–223.

Turfan Studies. Berlin-Brandenburg: Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 2007. <http://turfan.bbaw.de/projekt-en> (last visited 10.05.15).

Yampol’skaya, Nataliya Vasil’yevna. 2015. “Svodnyi perechen’ fragmentov rukopisei “chërnykh” mongol’skikh Gandzhurov v kollektsii IVR RAN”, Mongolica XV, pp. 48–58.

Zorin, Alexander. 2015. “Tibetan Buddhist Texts Acquired by the Russian Academy of Sciences during the 18th Century”, Journal of the International College for Postgraduate Buddhist Studies. Vol. XIX. Tokyo: ICPBS. pp. 184–142.


Fig. 1: The folio of the Mongolian manuscript Kanjur; Eldeb sudur, ka, 81. STAATSBIBLIOTHEK ZU BERLIN – Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Orientabteilung, Ms. or. Fol. 477

versorecto


Fig. 2: Detail of the folio of the Mongolian manuscript Kanjur; Eldeb sudur, ka, 81 recto. STAATSBIBLIOTHEK ZU BERLIN – Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Orientabteilung, Ms. or. Fol. 477


Fig. 3 : Detail of the folio of the Mongolian manuscript Kanjur; Eldeb sudur, ka, 81 verso. STAATSBIBLIOTHEK ZU BERLIN – Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Orientabteilung, Ms. or. Fol. 477

a folio from the berlin state library – additional remarks

Documents